9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (11) TMI 431X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re during a continuous period of not less than seven days, an abatement of duty is allowed for which a certain procedure was required to be followed i.e. intimation about date/time of closure and start with electricity meter readings etc. The appellants were following the said procedure and also filing returns and intimations to the Department. 2. A demand-cum-show cause notice was issued on 7-6-1999 demanding duty of Rs. 2,24,159/- for the period when there was no production and according to the appellants, the unit remained closed. The duty was demanded under Rule 9(2) read with Rule 96ZO(1)(c). The case was adjudicated on 3-11-2000. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand, imposed penalty and demanded interest. This order was s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... starting/stopping the production, submitted by the appellant s counsel at the time of personal hearing on 30-7-2003, there is nothing in the letters of intimation so as to indicate the time of stoppage of production. Thus the day of stoppage has been correctly taken into consideration by the department. Therefore, the demand of duty worked out by the original authority by taking the total number of working days as 30 is correct. The merits of the demand are not in dispute as the adjudicating authority has confirmed the demand under Rule 96ZO(1) as per the Annual Capacity of production fixed by the Commissioner. Thus the impugned order demanding the differential duty amounting to Rs. 2,24,159/- has been correctly passed and is upheld. Regar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ced on them as Section 3A and all its accompanying provisions like Rule 96ZO stands omitted. 6. The learned JDR points out that in the subject case, the assessment was completed by the adjudicating authority on 3-11-2000, well before the date of omission of Section 3A which is May 11, 2001. According to him, the ratio contained in the decision of M/s. Mitra Steel Alloys Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Raigad, supra, could be applicable only when assessments are not over before the date of omission. But, in this case, the facts are different and the assessment has already been finalized by the adjudicating authority and a final order has since been issued to them. The learned JDR also points out that based on the findings of the Apex Court in similar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
